Race Name — What Shall It Be?
Opinion of H. C. C. Astwood, Cambridgeport, Mass
The controversy going on regarding the particular term by which to designate the race is important and of general interest. After reading all that has been said upon the subject up to date, I must conclude that the logic and the facts are with the “Colored American.”
The word “Afro-American” is simply an individual fad of recent construction, which has been generally used by some to designate the race without stopping to think that it is really out of place and can have no significance at all as far as the race is concerned in this country. The word “African” or “Negro” may be applied in a general way to the native-born African and his descendants or to the Negro of Africa, because of the intense blackness of color, but the “Afro-American” race does not now nor ever did exist. It is argued that the German-American, the Irish-American, and the Anglo-American are distinctly racial lines, and for that reason the “Afro-American” must be applied to the race of African descent in America.
The conditions are not the same and the facts are against the argument. Let us analyze the different thousands of German, Irish, French, Dutch, and Italian nationalities who come to our shores annually. They form a distinct nationality within themselves, and as long as they retain their nationality they are German, French, and so on; but as soon as they become naturalized they become German-American, French-American, and so on; but their descendants born here are not German-Americans or French-Americans or Dutch-Americans; they are simply Americans, and nothing more. This is not the condition of the colored race in this country. I am of the opinion that it would be difficult to find a hundred native-born Africans in the United States; hence nationality is extinct. The ten millions of colored people in this country are native-born Americans, who never have had any other nationality, and cannot, therefore, be classed as anything else but Americans. If you wish to designate them because of their color, you cannot use a false term. They are not Africans nor Negroes, and there is no such a race as the Afro-American race known in the world. The particular race cannot be known otherwise than the “colored race,” or, if you apply the nationality, the “Colored American.” I don’t think that the matter admits of argument, and the intelligent gathering of colored women who assembled in Washington knew exactly what they were doing and applied the correct term to themselves.
The editor of the “Colored American” is correct in the stand taken, and is supported by the well-thinking colored people of the entire country. The word “Afro-American” grew out of a freak at Chicago, and is only generally used by the “Age” and a few others; and as far as its application is concerned, it can never be acceptable, and will die a natural death, without even a struggle to smother. I am sure that this will elicit a storm of ridicule; but be this as it may, the word “Afro” and the word “Negro” can never be forced upon an American, regardless of his color, without his consent, and I stand ready to maintain my position in the premises based upon sound reason and common sense.
Opinion of T. M’Cants Stewart, New York City
I invariably use the term “Afro-American” to designate our race residing in the United States. No stronger article has come under my eyes than the one which recently appeared from the pen of Prof. DuBois, showing that our term “Afro-American” can only be adhered to as an ark of refuge from the term “Negro,” which is too apt to be written with a small “n” and too frequently with two “g’s.”
We are seeking by our term to designate a race, not a locality, and therein lies the difficulty. If a person should refer to Lobengula’s son as an African, he would be correct, so far as fixing his habitat; but if an inquirer should be as great an interrogation point as Li Hung Chang, and should desire to know more about Lobengula, he would properly ask: “But to which one of the African races does he belong?” And the answer would be: “He is a Negro.” Now if Lobengula should come to reside in the United States, he could be properly called an “Afro-American” (but this is a very indefinite designation), meaning a native of Africa residing in America. To be strictly accurate, we would call him a Negro Afro-American. We have Italo-American, Franco-American, German-American, Russo-American, Spanish-American, but each of the terms covers an individual who is of foreign birth. These terms are not applied to the children of immigrants; at any rate, these children do not so describe themselves. Even where there is amalgamation between any two of these race varieties, no name is sought to cover the mixture of blood. These children call themselves Americans, and if you press for a blood analysis, you will be told that they are Americans of English and French descent, or some other descent, and if you ask for the name of their race, they will say: “We are Caucasians.”
There goes an Italo-American. He is an Italian (born in Italy) who now resides in America. That is the limit of this term. If two or more distinct races were inhabiting Italy, that would be a very indefinite term; but as only one race covers that land, the term is definite. There goes an Afro-American. When such a man is pointed out he should be a native of Africa residing in America; but the term as applied to him does not convey conclusive information to the scientist. He desires to know something more definite; and if the person is of black complexion and woolly hair, we say that he is a Negro Afro-American. No escape from this logic. But if one should say, “I am not a Negro; I have the blood of both races in my veins. What will you call me?” I answer: “Why, you are an American.” If you push me for a scientific term to fix your blood relationship to other American race varieties, and if you spring from the blood of a black and the blood of a white person, I would call you a “Negro-American,” since your blood is a mixture of that of those Africans called Negroes and that of the white Americans; but if, like the great Bishop Payne, the blood of three races (including the Indian) courses through your veins, then you are a Negro Indo-American.
It is difficult for us to get a scientific name. We are a mixed-blooded animal; we have no distinct race, no race name. The only people who have any right to establish race names and define them are the ethnologists. They have the human race divided into several distinct classes. If there is no houseroom in any class for the man of several different bloods, then we must get a new name. But certain principles must guide us. We cannot escape them without incurring the censure of such scientific minds as Prof. DuBois.
While I agree with Prof. DuBois that our term “Afro-American” lacks precision and is somewhat high sounding, yet I prefer it, because it rids us of the word “nigger,” and it has within itself an element of dignity and solidity which helps to promote aspiration in ourselves and to command respectful mention from others. And I think that the name is growing in use. I find it in a late standard dictionary and I notice that public speakers and writers in our best American publications are using it. But, although I rejoice in the fact, I cannot stand against the logic of the scholar who argues that the term cannot be defended upon scientific principles.
Opinion of P. Butler Thompkins, New York
In the last edition of the “Age” Prof. DuBois argues at considerable length why we should be called “Negroes,” and not “Afro-Americans.” I read his article with much interest, because the Professor advanced the best reasons why we should be called “Afro-Americans.” He admits that the term “colored” is a misnomer, and therefore meaningless.
The term “Negro” was not broad enough even to include all the inhabitants of Africa. All three of the great races were, from days immemorial, represented in Africa; but these were not then, nor are they now, known as “Negroes,” but “Africans,” subdivided into families and tribes. Those families that were known as true Negroes dwell between the Tropic of Cancer on the north and the equator on the south, and between the Nile (extremely north) and the Atlantic Ocean. These were divided into three classes—viz., true “Negroes,” “Negroids,” and the “Negrillos.” What say we of that other part of the great Hamitic family not known as “Negroes?” Were all of the slaves deported to America from that particular territory? If not, can we say that they were all Negroes? Nay, but they were all Africans.
The Professor next hastens into the middle of his subject. “Where does ‘Afro-American’ come in?” he asks; and then replies: “Awkwardly.” In reply, let me say that nothing is “awkward” that is right; the user may be awkward. Says he: “It may not be so objectionable when applied to some national gathering.” We have in America one great national gathering of Afro-Americans numbering some ten million or more. The Professor knows very well that it is not fair to argue from the general to the particular. The “Old Auntie in Hackensack” is not the subject. She is a member of the Afro-American family. Children generally take the name of their parents by birth or by adoption. Don’t refuse to call a thing by its right name because it is “awkward,” for the name is not “awkward,” but the tongue that handles it. We have a similar case in God’s Word. The Gileadites took the passage of Jordan and adopted a distinct watchword by which everyone of their number could be known. The Ephraimites, who desired to pass over the river, were required to say the word “Shibboleth,” which, if said properly, would signify that they were Gileadites. The Ephraimites could not pronounce it correctly, so they could not pass over, but were slain. This word “Shibboleth” was “awkward” to the Ephraimites; but not to the Gileadites, because they had trained themselves to say it. So must we train ourselves to say the right name, “Afro-American.”
In the second place, the Professor objects to the appellation “Afro-American” because, says he: “The adjectives ‘Irish’ or ‘German’ or ‘Swedish,’ which are sometimes used to designate certain classes, refer always to race rather than to country, and never to either of the great world divisions.” This may be true in a sense, but we beg to offer an alternative. There were many of us brought from those families or tribes in Africa which were not known as “Negroes,” for the Negroes, as we have shown, were only a remnant of the great African, or Hamitic, race.
In the third place the Professor objects to the term “Afro-American” because, says he: “This name would seek to separate us from our kindred in the land of our fathers.” This kind of reasoning is what we call reductio ad absurdum, for just the reverse of what he says is true. To say “Afro-American” is to reunite us to our forefathers, both by blood and language. It tells, whence we came and where we are. There is no other term in language, thought, or reason that fits in and at the same time covers the ground so completely as “Afro-American.” “Let us be Negroes, let us be one in blood,” says he. We can’t be what we are not. How can we be one in blood when our blood has been crossed a thousand times?
But we all can be Afro-Americans, because we all were of Africa and now are of America. In other words, our forefathers were Africans by birth and became Americans by adoption. We are Africans by descent and Americans both by birth and adoption. This addition, Africans plus Americans, equals Afro-Americans. We conclude, therefore, that the term “Negro,” although honorable and significant, is too narrow to be adopted as a national appellation. We need a name that will include every man that came from Africa, regardless of the section or territory from which he came, and that name is “African.” We want a name that will include every American citizen who has a drop of Negro blood in his or her veins, let them be as white as snow or as black as soot, and that name is “Afro-American.”